Tinsley v. Integrity Financial Partners, Inc.
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2803, 634 F.3d 416, 2011 WL 477486 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c), a consumer's written notice to a debt collector to cease communication prohibits further contact with the consumer directly, but it does not prohibit the debt collector from communicating with the consumer's attorney.
Facts:
- Integrity Financial Partners contacted Christopher Tinsley regarding a debt.
- Tinsley retained a lawyer to represent him in the matter.
- Tinsley's lawyer sent a letter to Integrity Financial Partners stating that Tinsley refused to pay the debt.
- The letter also requested that Integrity Financial Partners "cease all further collection activities and direct all future communications to our office."
- After receiving the letter, an agent for Integrity Financial Partners called Tinsley's lawyer to request payment.
Procedural Posture:
- Christopher Tinsley filed a lawsuit against Integrity Financial Partners in the U.S. District Court, alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Integrity Financial Partners.
- Tinsley, as appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where Integrity Financial Partners was the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a debt collector violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692c(c), by communicating with a consumer's attorney after the consumer has provided written notice to cease communication?
Opinions:
Majority - Easterbrook, Chief Judge
No. A debt collector does not violate § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA by contacting a consumer's attorney after receiving a cease-communication notice because the statutory prohibition applies only to direct communication with the consumer, not their legal counsel. The court reasoned that while Tinsley's interpretation seems plausible when reading § 1692c(c) in isolation, it falls apart when viewing the statute as a whole. Subsection (a)(2) requires collectors to communicate with a consumer's attorney once representation is known, and subsection (b) explicitly lists the consumer's attorney as a permissible party for communication. Interpreting § 1692c(c) to bar communication with the attorney would render these other subsections nonsensical and would disrupt ordinary pre-litigation discussions and settlement negotiations. Therefore, the phrase "communicate further with the consumer" in § 1692c(c) refers only to the consumer personally, not their lawyer.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a key operational aspect of the FDCPA, establishing that a consumer's "cease communication" notice creates a shield for the consumer personally but does not sever the channel of communication with their legal representative. The ruling prioritizes a holistic, structural interpretation of the statute over a literal reading of an isolated provision, preventing a result where hiring a lawyer would paradoxically halt all possible negotiations. It provides debt collectors and consumer attorneys with clear guidance that communication between counsel is not only permitted but is the expected channel for resolving disputes after a consumer has invoked their rights under § 1692c(c).
